Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petitioners-Appellants vs. vs. Respondent Respondents Appellees Mario Guarina III Enrique Arguelles
Petitioners-Appellants vs. vs. Respondent Respondents Appellees Mario Guarina III Enrique Arguelles
SYLLABUS
DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA , J : p
On July 7, 1970, in the Quieting of Title Case (No. 7777), the Trial Court issued an
Order dismissing said case, as follows:
"Acting upon the motion for dismissal of this case led by Atty. Enrique
Arguelles, counsel for the defendants, it appearing that the instant action has
been led since November 23, 1968 and up to this time plaintiffs failed to exert
effort to have the defendants summoned, for failure to prosecute and lack of
interest on the part of the plaintiffs for such unreasonable length of time, as
prayed, let this case be dismissed."
Procedurally speaking, therefore, since the dismissal by the Trial Court was
unqualified, it had the effect of an adjudication upon the merits.
However, the equities of the case are with the Olivareses. The rst sale with
pacto de retro by the Tuvillas to Tumabini was unregistered; in contrast, the sale in
favor of the Olivareses was duly recorded. The Consolidation Case (Case No. 7410)
instituted by Tumabini against the Tuvillas for consolidation of his ownership did not
include the Olivareses as parties defendants even though they were then in possession
of the Disputed Property. Justice and equity demand, therefore, that their side be heard
in the Re led Case (No. 8698). Then, too, the contempt incident and the matter of the
Writ of Possession in the Consolidation Case (No. 7410) were left unresolved pending
the outcome of the Quieting of Title Case (No. 7777).
In other words, it would be more in keeping with substantial justice if the
controversy between the parties to be resolved on the merits rather than on a
procedural technicality in the light of the express mandate of the Rules that they be
"liberally construed in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in
obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding."
The dismissal of actions is based on sound judicial discretion and such discretion
"must be exercised wisely and prudently, never capriciously, with a view to substantial
justice." For having failed to meet that standard it will have to be held that respondent
Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion (see Tandoc vs. Tensuan, L-50835, October
30, 1979, 93 SCRA 880).
WHEREFORE, the questioned Order of dismissal, dated September 6, 1971, in
Civil Case NO. 8698, is hereby SET ASIDE and the said case REMANDED for prompt
hearing and determination on the merits. This Decision shall be immediately executory
upon promulgation. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.